operating one upsets the primitives; titanic bout with the cali primitive

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5017732

Never mind the original bonfire, which is about the 1984 Democrat candidate for vice-president Genevieve Ferrari's comments about the Obamanation.

There's a lot of acrimony and Hate at this bonfire, but just the duel between the operating one and the cali primitive; this battle between a non-primitive and a very-high-calibre first-tier primitive reminds one very much of the legendary Nebraska-Oklahoma football games of yore:

Alter Ego (326 posts)      Tue Mar-11-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. Ferraro said basically that Obama is lucky he's black otherwise he wouldn't have survived this long.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 09:47 AM
Response to Original message

9. And Let Me Guess: The Obamites Will Cheering Loudly The Unfair Slandering Of Hillary In The Media.

mkultra (890 posts)      Tue Mar-11-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9

14. screw the media

This is Clintons own staff. Big difference there sherlock holmes..

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #14

20. How Is She Clinton's Staff? 

Hillary has nothing to do with those comments whatsoever. Anyone wanting to relate them back to her is nothing more than a deceitful asshole.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #28

38. Is She Her Spokesperson? No? She Isn't? Get Back To Me When She's In A Position To Speak For The   
campaign. Until then, maybe the obamites should avoid the disgustingly deceitful bullshit of trying to tie this to Hillary somehow, when that's blatantly not the case and makes them look dishonest assholes.

scheming daemons (1000+ posts)      Tue Mar-11-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #38
 
48. She's as much on Hillary's staff as Stephanie Power was on Obama's....

Both unpaid advisors.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #48
 
50. Please, Get Your Facts Straight.

scheming daemons (1000+ posts)      Tue Mar-11-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #50

56. My "facts" are perfectly straight..... she's as much on Hillary's staff as Power was on Obama's....
 
The fact that you don't acknowledge it doesn't make it false.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #56

60. Please, Get Your Facts Straight.

susankh4  (927 posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #56

180. Even if this were true... there is a HUGE difference. Ms. Ferraro is a party elder. She is an insider, has been for years, and can pretty much say what she pleases. The Clintons cannot tell her what she can, and cannot say. She outranks them in tenure.

Steph Powers was an inexperienced outsider working strictly for Mr. Obama.

That is the difference.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
 
69. Nope. This is connected to Hillary, no matter how you hillary supporters try to spin it. And don't bother denying the obvious. Geraldine Ferraro is at least as connected to the Clinton campaign as was Bill Shaheen- who was asked to step down as NH state co-chair. Ferraro has spoken on behalf of the campaign many times and in many places. It makes you look like a dishonest partisan when you sanctimoniously claim that Ferraro's comments are unconnected to Hill's campaign. Did you jump all over Jesse Jackson Jr for his idiot comments? I did. And thus I'm being consistent about criticizing Ferraro. I heard her a few weeks ago on "On Point" and I though at the time she crossed a line, but gave her a pass. This time? No. No pass.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #77

96. Yes, but I'm not suggesting she ask her to do so. I am suggesting that Hillary's campaign seems to have little control over their message.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #69

79. I'll Criticize Ferraro's Comments Just Fine. They Were Disgusting. But Relating Them To Hillary Is deceitful and the sign of a partisan asshole, in my opinion.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #79

92. One is a deceitful asshole if one claims that Ferraro is unconnected to the Clinton campaign. She is. You claimed otherwise. You are wrong. And this race stuff coming from Hill surrogates happens just a little too frequently. There's a pattern here: Get an ugly soundbite out there and then condemn it. Could just be that the campaign has a lot of people who shoot their mouths off inappropriately, but whatever the case, you'd think that the campaign would have better control over their message.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #92

99. Wrong. The Point Is That If Someone Tries To Have This Reflect On Hillary, As If She Would Condone or encourage such statements, they are being a deceitful asshole. That's a fact. This has nothing to do with Hillary, and all to do with ferraro. Any inference otherwise is disgusting.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #99

110. For someone constantly tooting your own horn about your purported brilliance, you don't seem to able to grasp the obvious: Let me help you out, dear. And opinion is not a fact. Your statement that anyone disagreeing with you is an asshole, is an opinion, not even remotely close to a fact. Do try and educate yourself. Learn the difference between opinion and fact. It's vile to claim that such an opinion is a fact and it's disgusting to claim that Clinton has no responsibility for the message coming from her surrogates and those connected to her campaign. Just an opinion of mine.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:29 AM
Original message

Again, Wrong. 

This has nothing to do with me. This has nothing to do with who does or doesn't agree with me. It has to do with reality and fact. In reality and in fact, Ferraro's comments are in no way tied to Hillary and in no way is Hillary on the hook for them. If someone wants to distort it in such a way as to try and bring Hillary down from it, then they would in fact be deceitful assholes. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. That fact would exist with or without my saying so.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message

118. LOL! The statement that so and so is an asshole is never fact and always opinion. And it has everything to do with the person stating such a thing. Take a logic course sometime. You clearly could use one if you actually think that when you state that someone is an asshole, it's fact. Your ignorance is clear on this subject. Who is and is not an asshole is a purely subjective judgment as there is no objective ground on which to make such a statement.

Campaigns have traditionally be held responsible for the message coming out of the campaign. Ferraro is part of the campaign. The former is a generally true. The latter is a fact. Please explain why Clinton "fired" Bill Shaheen and apologized to Obama for his comments, if it wasn't connected to her campaign. Please explain the difference in status between Ferraro and Shaheen when he was part of Clinton's campaign. This I want to see.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #118
 
127. Sure It Is. 

If someone tries to use this to say that Hillary condoned it somehow, they are a deceitful asshole. That's a fact, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

Furthermore, Hillary should, if she hasn't already, condemn the remarks. And comparing a state co-chair to someone on a campaign finance committee is just plain dumb.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #127

134. Nope. Sorry. Simply more ignorance from the guy who thinks he's so brilliant. The more someone claims that opinion is fact, the stupider they look. Spouting a patent falsehood repeatedly does not make it truer. It's still false, and the speaker is still wrong.

I noticed that you couldn't explain the Clinton reaction to the Shaheen reaction except by pulling something out of your ass and waving it around foolishly. You have no evidence that being a state co-chair is more closely connected to a campaign than being on the campaign finance committee. I believe you're wrong about that. But you have a habit of doing that- simply pulling stuff our of thin air and claiming it's the unvarnished truth. That does not fly.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #134

140. A State Co-Chair Isn't More Closely Connected Than Being Somone On The Campaign Finance Committee? 
 
Oh, that's rich! And you have the gall to call me ignorant? LOL

And facts don't require your approval to stand as fact. If someone tries to imply that this is part of a Hillary strategy and is connected to Hillary in some way through approval or condonation of those comments, then they are being deceitful. Since people who purposely and shamelessly decieve are assholes, then they would in fact be deceitful assholes.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #140

149. Evidence that what you're claiming is true, please.

I understand that a state co-chair of a campaign is mostly an honorary position without decision making responsibilities.

You need to provide evidence, sweetie, that your claim that a state co-chair is closer too a campaign or more important a position than a member of a campaign's finance committee. Pulling it out of your nether regions and proclaiming it as fact doesn't cut it. So do let's see your evidence.

And all i'm pointing out is that it's up to the campaign to ensure that surrogates don't stray off message. Hillary has had a bit of trouble in that regard. That's why she's had to distance herself so many times from the statements of those connected with her campaign.

And no, as I said, no matter how many times you repeat an opinion insisting that it's fact, it doesn't change that it is not. Perhaps if you had more education, you'd know this.

mkultra (890 posts)      Tue Mar-11-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message

156. Actually , your wrong

It is a matter of FACT that all people in senior posts of a given campaign are considered part of the campagin and thus tied to the candidate. This includes Bill, Chelsea, Wolfson, etc.

These people speak for her and unless she takes actions against them publicly for their comments, she is essentially condoning through silence. That is the popululary accepted dynamic of politics and thus IS reality.

if these other people where not "connected" to the campaign then they wouldn't be speaking for Clinton at HER behest.

VolcanoJen  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #99
 
130. When Ferraro wrote a glorious pro-Hillary editorial in the New York Times in November... 

... did that have anything to do with Hillary?

When Ferraro penned yet another New York Times editorial just a few weeks ago, in which she took credit for creating the superdelegate system, then going on to push the Clinton camp's line, that the superdelegates should not take into account the pledged delegate and popular vote when making their decision, did that have anything to do with Hillary?

See, I think you're running out of coincidences.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #130

138. Or to put it another way

full of it. Anyone who thinks opinion is fact is ignorant.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #130

139. Those Are The Opinions Of Ferraro, And No, They Didn't. 

Furthermore, your mind may be so closed and rigid that you think everything has to be all or nothing, but mine isn't. See, I'm intelligent enough to see that every circumstance is its own, and every event has its own set of details. In this case, what was said had not an iota to do with Hillary, would not be condoned by Hillary, would not be put forth by Hillary, and is the sole product of Ferraro spouting out the mouth. Nice try.

cali  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #139

142. Oh, I don't think so

A candidate is ultimately responsible for the message conveyed by surrogates. It's a buck stops here thing. And I don't know of anyone here who's more rigid in their thinking than you- or who has so often had to brag about how intelligent they are. It's rather sad, really.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME  (1000+ posts)       Tue Mar-11-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #46

49. Is She Her Spokesperson? No? She Isn't? Get Back To Me When She's In A Position To Speak For The 
campaign. Until then, maybe the obamites should avoid the disgustingly deceitful bullshit of trying to tie this to Hillary somehow, when that's blatantly not the case and makes them look dishonest assholes.

Keep in mind this is a very large bonfire, and the operating one is at the same time battling other primitives, too.

[miskie]

Its seems the post tragedy love OMC's detractors gave him is now gone.

He is right BTW -- unless GF is presented as part of the Clinton Team, she isn't. If that were the case, all of the vile supporters of both BO and HC in the DU Monkey cage should be blamed for spreading bad about their opponents. She is a supporter, they are supporters, therefore they are equal, right ?

[franksolich]

Well, I can see the first-tier primitive cali's point, but I think it's narrowly edged out by the fact that Genevieve Ferrari is, ostensibly, a "figure" in the Democrat party, a personality in herself, able to speak for herself no matter who she's supporting.

[Bondai]

Hillary of course has denied any knowledge of said comment...that's how she always does it. Get someone outside the normal channels to say something and then sit back and see what happens. If it blows up she denies knowing anything about it. Hillary is the most deceitful person I have seen in some time...